Why Tolkien?

[Aelfwine]

At the turn of the millenium, many lists appeared ranking the best books of the past century. Many critics disputed LoTR's worthiness to appear anywhere near the top of such lists. Many would not term LoTR a "classic" and many would decline to include the books within the amorphous category of "literature". We who post here might disagree with some or all of the foregoing criticisms. Yet we would all likely agree that there are many great authors besides Tolkien and many compelling works other than LoTR. Any list of such authors or works would vary based upon personal taste and I decline to provide such a catalog because I do not want this thread to wander off on that tangent. My question is simple... or not.

Why Tolkien?

There are a number of large Tolkien bulletin boards on the net. There are more smaller boards. There are newsgroups, mailing lists, etc. This site has thousands of members (most of whom are concededly no longer active but ehy were here once and at least appear to visit now and again), thousands of threads and uncounted posts. Interactive writing based upon Tolkien's world has flourished here in the form of rpgs. Imitation is, of course, the highest form of praise.

But why Tolkien? Why not Faulkner, or O'Brian, or Vonnegut, or Homer, or Tolstoy or... you get the picture.

There has previously been discussion here about subjects like applicability or morality. Some might raise quality or escapism. Clearly Tolkien strikes a chord of some sort. The type of chord might differ in each and every one of us. While I'd be glad to hear about everyone's chords, my question is more why does Tolkien strike a chord rather than what kind. Because, of course, I have some ideas of my own...

[Inziladun]

Why not Tolkien?
You say you are mainly interested in the "why", and not the "what", but I see the questions as too closely intertwined to seperate.
I am, and have been a voracious reader as long as I can remember, for thirty-odd years. I recall knowing of The Hobbit from the time I was around five or thereabouts, read the book by my father. I'm told I went to see the Bakshi animated LOTR movie when it was in theatres, though I was too young to remember it. In summary, Tolkien has been a part of my life as far back as memory goes. There are several reasons for the "Tokien Chord" in my case. I suppose one reason is the fact that I am something of a traditionalist, and identify with many of his common motifs in the books: honour, determination, courage, and devotion to duty, among others.
Another reason is that I am a devoted 'Anglophile', from music, to literature, to history. The English 'feel' of the works appeals to me, and I greatly doubt I would find a fundamentally identical LOTR written by a Swede or an American to be nearly as inviting.
Thirdly, Tolkien's linguistic skills are probably what really sets his works apart for me. I've often thought that it may be the sheer delight I find in the florid and archaic prose that keeps me reading the books again and again rather than the stories alone. I simply have not found words in fiction to match the likes of Tolkien, and I doubt I shall.
For those reasons ( and I could probably come up with more), Tolkien is the sole 'fantasy' author in my bookcase.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, somebody had to be first!

This is not of course to disparage Joyce or Faulkner or Vonnegut or Orwell, any of whose works would have made a worthy first place. I think the value of that survey is to demonstrate that a great book can be popular as well as profound, engage the emotions as well as the intellect, satisfy high, low and middle brows all at once. And it's a stunning rebuke to the Toynbee/Greer/Booker Prize circlejerk of Literary Correctness who hold that a book, to be valid, must be sneering and/or unreadable.

[Mithalwen]

I think there has been a change in the years since I was at University reading Literature when and where Tolkien was very much a "love that dare not speak its name" - he only got a mention with regard to invented languages in linguistics so I am pleased but slightly amazed that so many of the younger downer seem to be getting the chance to write essays on him. And although there are some excellent works of criticism youdotn' need them to access the work (though I found Forster invaluable when I first read the Silmarillion!).

I think the literati hate that he doesn't fit into their categories and it is a particular thorn in their side because the academic credentials of the author mean they cannot easily dismiss it. And Tolkien did not so much write a novel as create a world. It is not hard to fault Tolkien as a novelist (though it was evident that many who reviewed TCOH hadn't actually read it), but the world he created is so marvellous and intriguing... I know it isn't real, I don't pretend it's real but I love the plausibility of the creation. This is what brings us back - that and the wealth of information made available us through the editorship of Christopher Tolkien. We can get so involved in it because there is so much to be involved in and that may link in to other interests we have. For I read Tolkien as the history of a created world rather than as stories - I seldom read through the books straight but use them as resources for whatever aspect I am currently interested. Tolkien in some ways is at his best with what with other writers would be trivia but with him are simply the incursion of the wider creation in to the plot.

I found Middle Earth a refuge first time round from the troubles of adolescence and second time from the pain of bereavement but it is so much more than escapism. I have over "comfort reads" (eg the Forsyte/Barchester Chronicles) but I don't spend my life discussing them online as I do Tolkien. I am a fairly omnivorous reader (though actually not much else that is "fantasy") and read both supermarket chicklit and Booker listed stuff and lots in between. I am not claiming that Tolkien is the best writer if it meant placing him above Austen or Orwell or that LOTR is the best English novel - technically Middlemarch may well be but I have never been able to face reading it a second time myself), but perhaps he is the most beloved writer and I would point out that LOTR was voted "Book of the Century" before the films came out so it can not be claimed that its popularity is distorted by people who may have seen the films rather than read the books. The only reason that Tolkien might not be my "Desert Island Discs" book choice would be the difficulty of choosing a single volume! Currently in my bag I have LOTR, Silmarillion,UT, letters and the Journeys of Frodo which I regard as a bare minimum!!!

I am ashamed to say that I stopped reading Tolkien at University (though he was the reason I was so keen on the linguistics component!) - I had exhausted the canon and found the early volumes of HoME tough going and with a lengthy reading list making demands on time and pocket and it was the publicity surrounding the films that reignited my interest - I got full marks in a quiz without having glanced at the books for the best part of a decade! And there was the internet to allow me to get in contact with like minded souls (noone in my RL is really interested). It has swallowed up more of my time than I want to think about but I don't think it wasted.

So to give a short answer after a long one, Tolkien has breadth and depth and the more you look the more you find.

[Kuruharan]

I think the love of language that Tolkien brought to his work infused it with the depth Mithalwen refers to. I hate to say that I think that level of personal involvement and love for a subcreation on the part of an author is rare, but in some ways I believe it is. This is not to say that author's don't love their creation...but I don't think many do quite to the extent that Tolkien did. It was in many respects his life's work and I think that makes a lot of difference.

I believe that is a critical part of why Tolkien's work stands out and will continue to stand out as time goes by.

[Aelfwine]

I like your signature, Kuruharan. It strikes a "chord" with me.

As I expected, and this is not a criticism, I see much discussion about "what" everyone's chord is rather than "why" Tolkien strikes a chord with so many people. This leads me to believe that I was unclear. I will clarify after I briefly discuss my chord.

To me, the Middle Earth mythos feels complete; it is comprehensive and consistent (and I know, just as anyone who has perused HoME, that there are inconsistencies and frayed threads). Middle Earth simply works. It manages to feel right and real, complete with an ancient history merely glimpsed in LoTR and later published in the posthumous works. This is why Tolkien has always been compelling to me.

As I said, everyone has personal reasons for loving Middle Earth. My question is why are so many people driven to discuss it on boards? I am one of the old school. I first read LoTR before the Silmarillion was much more than a rumor, long before there was an internet. Before the movies, there were a handful of decent boards where Tolkien was discussed. When the movies came out we witnessed an explosion of boards, literally hundreds. Everyone wanted to talk about Middle Earth. Now, years later, we are back to perhaps a dozen or less decent boards, but the discussion continues. As Kuruharan's signature hints, people want to talk about Tolkien. People want to be part of a Tolkien community, whatever their personal reasons for liking his work may be. Why are we so driven to discuss this author and his works? Why do we want and need a community?

I have not researched what boards may be out there for other authors. I'm sure some exist. I'm sure there are plenty of Harry Potter boards though I doubt that 50 years after publication there will be interest comparable to the present and continuing interest in Tolkien. I think that there are broad and perhaps nearly universal reasons for this beyond our personal reasons for appreciating LoTR. What do you all think they are?

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Aelfwine

Clearly Tolkien strikes a chord of some sort. The type of chord might differ in each and every one of us. While I'd be glad to hear about everyone's chords, my question is more why does Tolkien strike a chord rather than what kind. Because, of course, I have some ideas of my own...

If I understand him correctly, Tom Shippey argues that fantasy is the definitive genre of the 20th century and that Tolkien's preeminence is due to his being the master of that genre; hence, "Author of the Century."

[Bêthberry]

From the mouth of a fan who posts more Tolkien related 'stuff' on the internet than we Downers do! (Yes, that is possible! )

Originally Posted by Chris Bouchard, director, The Hunt for Gollum

And if you're a fan of a particular genre it's nice to be able to return to that world briefly - even if it is another fan's interpretation.

from the link Rumil posted about the online fan film.

[Mister Underhill]

I find myself nodding in especial agreement with Aiwendil’s post. I think the reasons fans discuss Tolkien with such tirelessness have a lot to do with the world he built.

Tolkien makes demands on readers that most of the authors Aelfwine mentions do not.

For one thing, there’s the simple matter of all this made-up stuff to cope with. Even casual fans are more or less compelled to become conversant in basic Middle-earth geography, sociology, and linguistics if they’re to make it all the way through to the end of LotR. For more dedicated fans, of course, there’s a wealth of trivia to master. Any specialized interest that involves a large body of trivia is going to spawn groups of people who share that interest. In some ways, Tolkien boards share a close kinship with WWII boards, or roleplaying game boards, or certain kinds of filmmaking boards. Come to think of it, discussion of Tolkien in a roleplaying context is a sort of super-specialized interest.

But it’s not just the sheer volume of trivia. There’s a richness and a coherence to Tolkien’s construction which also invites discussion. A lot of the threads here on the Downs are dedicated to testing the integrity of Middle-earth. We ask questions like whether or not the purported one lone eastern gate and defensive bridge of Khazad-dûm could really have supported its needs at the height of its power. Besides just sheer knowledge, fans want and need to analyze and interpret that knowledge, and see if it can stand up under scrutiny.

Moreover, I think Tolkien’s creation is exceptional enough to pass some sort of threshold of coherence, beyond which fans will do their own work to make even awkward or ill-fitting elements of the invented world “fit”. Hence the many theories as to the nature of good ol’ Tom Bombadillo and RPGs dedicated to solving the question of how hobbits in the Shire are able to stock their pantries with coffee.

And of course you can also discuss Tolkien in more literary modes: influences, themes, structure, characterizations, and so on. Once again, the canvas is so broad and so rich that there’s plenty of grist for the mill. The explosion of this sort of analysis in books about Tolkien in the post-movie era has really made its influence felt on the Downs in recent years, I think.

And I don’t think you can discount the pure aesthetic appeal of Middle-earth. It’s been said that great works of art make you want to linger in the world they create. I think that’s ultimately a major reason why LotR and stuff like Star Wars endure. When people build costumes from and make fan films in the world you’ve created, you know you’re on to something special.

I think the upshot is that the answer to the question “Why Tolkien?” is not one thing -- it’s all these things and more.

But as I’ve been writing this, and the more I think about it, I realize that these are some of the things that keep people discussing Tolkien even after the bloom is long off the rose.

Maybe the thing that makes us seek out Tolkien boards in the first place is that impulse you have when something really great happens to you -- you want to talk about it with other people, especially other people who get it. Maybe what draws us to Tolkien discussion is a desire to recapture that experience we had when Middle-earth first pierced our hearts.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Mister Underhill brings up several of the reasons we're here; I've often thought there must be a common denominator shared by Tolkien readers, at least those of the dedicated, enthusiastic kind. I think that a love of language is involved, a feeling for the aesthetic beauty of words that this particular author uses. And if we are linguistic connoisseurs, we also feel the need to express our thoughts in language. Hence the inclination to read and write about Tolkien's works.

This is in no way limited to the internet, though this medium has added to our possibilities for sharing. There are numerous literary societies all over the world whose members meet in real life to discuss serious subjects involving themes of JRRT's works, and also to immerse themselves in the world of Middle-earth by wearing costumes and enjoying fun activities. Middle-earth has room for everyone from Hobbits to Elves, so its fans have all kinds of possibilities to express their enthusiasm. The depth and breadth of Tolkien's fantasy world encourages us to explore it in depth and breadth.

[Bêthberry]

Geeks rule the interwebs and Tolkien is the ur-geek.

Lord of the Geeks

(Note, this is from June 5, 2001.)